Monday, October 15, 2012

Even Gun-Rights Advocates are For Gun Control

This is a bit old, but it's still good. Thom Hartmann is the only person I've heard other than myself say that given the gun laws in Arizona, there were probably other armed people around the Giffords shooting.

I also like the way he insisted that even gun rights fanatics are for gun control. It's just a question of where we draw the line.

36 comments:

I suspect there were several folks who had guns on them at the Aurora CO theater shootings, as well.

The common myth among gunloons is that they'll react like some movie action hero should an unexpected shooting take place. The reality, of course, is very different. Gunloons will usually void themselves as they beat feet away from the situation.

Or here's a third possibility Jadegold. The overwhelming majority of armed citizens are wise and restrain themselves even under stress. When they face a crowd situation, they keep their firearm holstered if they are not confident in their ability to shoot the attacker and only the attacker. And, even if a citizen was extremely confident in their ability to shoot their intended target, they may also keep their firearms concealed in their holsters unless an attacker is directly attacking them. After all, the main reason for a citizen to be armed in public is for their own personal protection; armed citizens are not police officers.

Of course it is a benefit to everyone if an armed citizen does intervene on behalf of someone else, but it is not a legal requirement to do so.

Billy, to the contrary; I recognize a situation for what is. Gunloons, OTOH, live in this fantasy world where they can be "Maverick" from TopGun or the hero from the Die Hard films.

Of course, reality bites hard.

Gun loons carry in public because of self-esteem issues. They believe--due to the lack of success in their social and professional lives--that carrying a weapon earns them the respect they've been incapable of earning.

Evidently Jade Gold doesn't get the meaning of "concealed carry." That means if he/her and I pass on the street, you shouldn't be able to know that I even have a pistol on me. So that kind of shoots his/her whole self esteem issues theory down the tubes.

Goldilocks, people who yammer about self-esteem typically have no justification for having any. It's the constant theme of public school counselors and the Lifetime channel. I'm too busy doing things to worry about the subject.

But do tell us, what have you done for the betterment of this world? What are your achievements? You'll have to provide proof, since you strike me as the kind of person who talks a big talk. You're the type who projects his insecurities on the rest of the world and shivers in terror at the thought that someone else might do what he's fantasized about doing, but never acted on.

I'm on the defensive? In what way do you see Goldilocks as having won a point here? The only armed good person that we know of in Tucson was distant. You say that probably there were others on the scene. There's a chance, and you've been shown an estimate of its percentage, but it's tiny.

The claim of concealed carry is that it gives some benefit--an improved chance of surviving an incident, giving rational criminals a moment of pause, and so forth. We don't say that it's a guarantee in all situations. You want all or nothing. We see that the world is more complex than that.

Keep telling yourself it was a tiny possibility that there were armed people around. This was AZ, where they have Constitutional Carry. You're stats were bullshit based on concealed carry permits which ARE NOT NEEDED to carry in that freedom-loving state.

There almost certainly were others in the near vicinity and they didn't do shit. The only thing we need to guess about is why.

"There almost certainly were others in the near vicinity and they didn't do shit. The only thing we need to guess about is why."

Perhaps they made the decision not to shoot because, contrary to your beliefs, there was a crowd of people around. It's seems like you're pretty upset that a civilian didn't shoot 9 innocent bystanders.

No, you can't. There are some measures that I'm willing to tolerate in the interest of compromise--laws against felons owning guns, a shall-issue carry license system, for examples--but I take the text of the Constitution at its word. The people have the right to handguns, shotguns, rifles, bows, and bladed weapons. That's what arms meant at the time, and it's a good definition for today. I don't support restrictions on full-auto guns, for example, but we'll get to that after we win other victories.

Mikeb, we take away rights from criminals and the dangerously insane. That's a general act of control, not specific to guns. We don't let children do many things. Same situation. When it comes to law-abiding adults, I oppose all gun control.

I argue with people who seek to take away my rights. You can call that petty, but it's important to my side, and until you understand that, you'll make no progress with any of us.

We've talked about what kinds of weapons are meant in the Second Amendment before. You know very well that I don't mean missiles and nukes. Those are not weapons typically used by one person. An RPG is a grey area, but considering its effect, I class it with artillery and other such military arms. We have a right to arms that one person uses against another. We're not talking about collective weapons here. I would, for example, gladly issue letters of marque to sailors operating around the Horn of Africa, though.

If you're going to start tossing words like "probably" around, you should probably attach a number to it. From the AZ Dept of Public Safety, there are 175,706 active concealed carry permits. According to the US Census Bureau, AZ's total population is about 6.4 million, of which about 61% is between 18 and 65. That means 175,706 out of 3.9 million (even more if you include the 65 and older set) have concealed carry permits. That's 4.5%. Depending on the age demographics of the crowd at the Giffords event, the probability of someone having a gun may be higher or lower.

It is my sincere hope that only responsible citizens would possess firearms and that criminals would never possess firearms. And having said that, I cannot think of any aspect of gun control that I support. The two main reasons that I do not support gun control are:1. Gun control does not stop criminals from acquiring and using guns.2. Gun control erodes the rights of citizens to own property (guns).

Since gun control fails to achieve its desired outcome and has many negative, unintended consequences, I do not support it.

Mikeb, Richard the Lionheart respected Saladin. Patton respected Rommel. Kirk respected Kor. In each case, the enemy was a worthy opponent. When your side can't even use technical terms correctly, we see you as tribbles--soft, whiny, destructive, and generally needing to be eradicated.